It’ll soon be over. It’s all coming apart. You can only watch in awe.
Forbes online has just published a consensus-shattering article by Larry Bell: Global Warming Chorus Discord Rising To Feverish Pitch. Some selected juicy excerpts…
…leading voices in the Global Warming Gospel Choir are now abandoning the old climate crisis hymnal … ‘there’s nothing much happening yet even though we were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now’ … blizzard of criticism charging the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with gross incompetence and dishonesty, most particularly regarding fear-mongering exaggeration …
Schellnhuber coauthored a paper refuting reliability of General Circulation (climate) Models … ‘[greenhouse gas scenario] trends are clearly overestimated’ … benefits of any global warming…are greatly underrated … no confidence in alarmist climate predictions … all based on computer models … powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines …
scientists have falsified data to support their own beliefs … 51% of the Democrats also agreed … Rapidly growing public skepticism … putting alarmists on the defensive … worried about a global warming-induced ice age …”
PS: The Forbes article even has a link to NTZ.
12 responses to “Must Read! Forbes Magazine Writes Of “Rising Global Warming Discord…Rapidly Growing Skepticism””
ah well….the Club of Rome…who are these guys??
Yes, but influential crackpots.
What? You don’t know? They are the original doom-mongers since the late 60ies.
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that
pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome
So Schellnhuber is tryng to save his skin now.
The invector of the 2 degree nonsense and the coauthor of the ecofascist manifesto seems to be playing on both grounds.
In the case of the ‘Limits to Growth’, it wasn’t the whole Club (it was authored by the Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens), but the organization put its full weight and authority, such as it was, behind it to push the report (and the press releases and “condensed versions”, which was what the press reports in most cases “relied on”, i.e. parroted). The funny thing is that in 1972 the book was met with widespread disbelief and dismissal. What sold the prospects of future austerity were the claims that “the best data had been put through computers” – and computers, of course, cannot fail: they look at the data unbiased and always get the same result… (They never talked about “models”, because back then the public had no idea of the difference between hardware and software.) Unbelievers were either hidebound optimists in a state of denial or minions of Big Oil or the military-industrialist complex. Sound familiar?
Never mind that it was soon obvious that the models used tended to a relentless depletion of any resource modeled, regardless of what data were fed into them, that the data were scanty and cherrypicked, the assumptions behind them crudest guesses: A “powerful think tank of the world’s best concerned experts” had spoken: it was the 1972 version of the 97% claim.
The Scare in its present-day form may be over; but I have no doubt that these Cassandras will be with us in 40 years, still warming up their old Armageddon hash, with the fin-du-globe à jour as modish dressing. (After all, utter prophetic or practical failure never counts for anything with such people: the failure of East German communism has not stopped that very party from betting on the inevitable end of the free market.) Makes one wonder what these people prophesied about the decadent West 40 years before the CoR. (1972 – 40 = 1932): no, don’t tell me, I’ve got an idea…
Just like with CAGW today, the purpose and the outcome of the “Limits To Growth” computer models were predetermined (see what I quoted above).
Re Forbes quoting Schellnhuber as stating unreliability of the models: See the paper. Their conclusion is that once one adds enough aerosols, the models become much better. Aerosols are their standard fudge factor. By assuming a suitable past history of aerosol forcing one can hindcast anything. The Schellnhuber paper gives a “justification” for that. Schellnhuber is, was, and has always been a career warmist.
Wow! A survivor of Hansen’s/Gore’s Antarctica expedition!
It must have been terrible. He came back alive, but insane.
It reads like he dropped too much acid. (LSD)
Hmrmph: the HuffPo. There you go in, hoping to read an update on the classic version of Grim Antarctic Horror Stuff – H.P.Lovecraft’s “At the Mountains of Madness” (especially now that Guillermo de Toro will not be filming it) Campbel’s “Who Goes There”/The Thing, or at least Thomas Kenneally’s Under the Aurora (murder’n’mayhem), and all you get it the archetypical 60s Hippie tripe: “I was stoned in the bathtub, and suddenly the Light of Universal Brotherhood clobbered me over the head…”
Hippies: 1 – Cthulhu: 0…
On the other hand, maybe…
The Russians DID just manage to reach Lake Vostok, didn’t they?
Dear Pierre (and others),
Today, I hit upon this article as well. I am to translate it into German by next week.
Let’s hope it’s really falling apart, because the longer it takes, the more painful for all of us!